What's wrong with the current state of gun background checks?

[Bradical79]

As has been shown in my other thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023008849 I'm woefully ignorant of some issues with gun ownership and purchase, particularly in regards to our background check system and how it works. (also learned I shouldn't post on some subjects before I've had my coffee, lol).

A big flaw in my Cabelas scenario seems to be that criminals who try to turn their shoplifting gains into legal seeming gun purchases would be denied gun ownership due to the criminal background check (according to responses to my OP). I also know that lots of liberals/progressives are unhappy with the expiration of older background check law(s) that were around previously. I'm not 100% clear on what makes the current law so much more ineffective than previous law, though I have been show statistics and graphs showing what seems to be a correlation between the previous law and a drop in gun violence. Can anyone enlighten me?

[veganlush]

1. for one thing, they are optional

if you don't want to submit to one, you simply avoid it by purchasing from a private seller, such as at a gun show. It's like making it perfectly legal to buy booze at the store at any age, but at the bar you have to show proof that you are of a certain age.

[Jenoch]

6. Most dealers at gunshows have FFLs

and thus do background checks before sales are made.

[veganlush]

12. keyword there is "most"

the gun show is still the best one-stop place, other than maybe craigslist or something, to find ways to buy them without background checks. the fact that some dealers sell there too doesn't change this fact.

[Jenoch]

13. In some states that may be true.

In Minnesota, I bet 99% of the dealers with booths selling guns have FFLs.

[CokeMachine]

9. Not here in California.

All sales require a background check be it gun shows, private sales or transfers, or at the gun shop. I'm all for a UBC, btw.

[upaloopa]

2. Maybe you could go to a Brady gun law site and read up

might save making another long meaningless gun thread.

[Bradical79]

5. I don't think discussing gun laws is meaningless

Even if it has been discussed before. If we avoided previously discussed hot button topics this board would be dead. I will read up on the Brady law though. For the life of me, I couldn't remember the name :-P

[upaloopa]

10. From my point of view there isn't a word or thought

about guns that we all haven't read here at DU.
No minds are being changed.
These are more about pissing contests and food fights then they are about debating.
By now both sides have their prepared talking points.
All that is left is for each side to try and influence legislatures.
When ever I look at one of these gun threads I see a handful of people posting dueling insults.

[pipoman]

14. Personally,

I wouldn't go to the Brady site or the NRA and expect to get the true story about this topic. Both are equally riddled with outright lies and misinformation. DU archives isn't a bad place to read both sides of this issue. Follow the links in various threads and over a period of reading, I believe one could base their opinion on something more concrete than biased entrenched vapor..

[petronius]

3. I don't think there are any background check laws that are expiring, the issue is

that not every firearm transfer currently requires a background check. Specifically, depending on state law, a transfer between private parties (i.e., not a licensed dealer) may not require a check.

But as far as your Cabela's example, every purchase from a licensed firearms dealer requires a background check, no matter where the transaction occurs. So if those shoplifters had disqualifying records of any sort the sale would have been denied, whether it was cash or gift card or whatever. It seems from your other OP that you thought a purchase using a gift card would avoid a background check - that's definitely not the case. It's true that the money being used was stolen (and I get the sense that maybe Cabela's needs some better security wrt shoplifting, if this was so lucrative), but the source of the money has no relation to background checks or firearms law.

[pipoman]

4. There has never been another background check requirement

unless you are talking about the brief time between passage of the Brady Bill and the establishment of the NICS system. The flaw in the current system isn't a "loophole". It was intentionally written to exclude sales between 2 people of the same state who do not have federal firearms licenses and are not in the business of selling guns. This was originally exempted because nobody believed then (and also now) that a challenge based on the commerce clause would survive..the feds have no jurisdiction over private party sales of legal personal property between residents of the same state. Every other possible scenario requires a background check..internet sales outside of ones state of domicile, guns sold at gun shows by ffl dealers, guns sold to people in different states, etc.

A lot of people wish there were checks on private sales..myself included, however it will almost certainly have to be done at the state level as several states have already done..maybe someday there will be enough states requiring it to meet the threshold for an amendment exempting gun sales from the limitations of the commerce clause..

[galileoreloaded]

11. correct. nt

[premium]

7. What other background check laws were allowed to expire?

None that I'm aware of.
I'm all for all firearms sales having to go through a background check.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I don't understand the objection to a gun registry.

One of the most fundamental needs of "a well-regulated militia" is knowing the identities of the members.